426
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
426 points (98.2% liked)
politics
19144 readers
1831 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Buttery emails are way more fun to cover than gravy seals.
Whatever the reason might be, the fact is that Trump is getting much gentler treatment in 2024 than Hillary Clinton did in 2016. That's especially concerning given that Trump's alleged crimes are many orders of magnitude worse than Clinton's alleged crimes.
Definitely seems like the media, bought up by very conservative old men, has a favourite in the election. Not sure if they're pushing the narrative that Trump is surging to depress Democratic Party vote or motivate us to not get complacent.
Can you please name any?
Seriously? Is it even possible to not know? Or you just like making people list them?
Here is just the sexual ones.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations
Here are his current active trials in court
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2023/trump-criminal-investigations-cases-tracker-list/
There's of course more, but isn't that already enough?
Unless you wanted Hillary Clinton's for comparison. She used her personal e-mail address a lot instead of the one she is supposed to use as a high ranking government employee. Her e-mails may, and did, contain classified information. Only the official government e-mail server is intended to be used for sending classified infirmation due to risk of breach by outside individuals. No such breach seems to have occurred, but still a crime to have put them in a position where they weren't officially as secure as they could have been.
The result of going through 60'000 plus e-mails was that no intentional wrong was done and they recommended no charges.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
Now that we are on the topic of improper handling of classified materials... guess what else Trump has done... and like, actually. Like in a way that resulted in actually being charged.
He Illegally stored a bunch of classified material where he was living, and while having that information, invited foreign government officials to also stay there. We can't know if anything intentionally malicious happened. But we can certainly assume that classified information was not "as secure as it should have been". And when asked to bring that classified material he was illegally storing back, he refused.
The difference is stark and utterly bonkers. Look at every single headline coming out of CNN, CBS, NYT, NBC, ABC, FOX – literally all of them… the fact they’re all reporting on Harris and trump as though it’s a normal candidate dichotomy and not the insane disparity between a politician and a raving lunatic who should be sectioned by his loved ones for his own protection, is simply madness.
This should not be a contest. Nobody should be taking seriously a man who is a demonstrable racist, fascist, unhinged lunatic who rants about toilets and windmills, who has been found liable for rape, who can barely string sentences together, who has felony convictions, and who has demonstrably committed treason twice – and he’s treated the same by the media as a career prosecutor with none of that and who has actually sane (if centrist) policies….
Do you see how crazy that is?
Why no media coverage of Oliver Chase? Oh because most of America falls into their trap of no third parties.
It’s not a trap, Jesus.
FPTP voting means 3rd parties can only be spoilers for the party they’re most aligned with. That’s a mathematical fact, whether we like it or not.
I hate that as much as you do, but edgy protest voting only gives the fascists more control.
If you really care about that, stop propping up fascists, and instead put that effort into an actual grassroots effort to make the US electoral system more fair:
Support FairVote Action.
it's not a mathematical fact. if it were you could lay out a proof instead of linking a YouTube video.
It is though, that’s the biggest problem with FPTP voting
you still haven't shown the proof.
It’s called Duverger’s law if you’re actually interested in expanding your understanding on the topic and not acting in bad faith.
This isn’t something to be debated, it’s really just how the math of FPTP works out. CGP Gray has a really good video on the topic as well- that’s what the previous commenter linked to. I’d recommend giving it a watch.
duvergers law is not a mathematical proof. it isn't even a law. it's a tautology.
I’m not going to waste my time by spelling out full academic mathematical proofs for a concept that is fucking obvious if you look at the info provided.
You obviously have no interest/capability of holding a good faith conversation
your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith
duverger's law is a tautology because, from a critical rationalist perspective, a tautological statement cannot be empirically tested or falsified. it's true by definition. duverger's law states that a plurality-rule election system tends to favor a two-party system. however, if this law is framed in such a way that any outcome can be rationalized within its parameters, then it becomes unfalsifiable. for example, if a country with a plurality-rule system has more than two parties, one might argue that the system still "tends to" favor two parties, and the current state is an exception or transition phase. this kind of reasoning makes the law immune to counterexamples, and thus, it operates more as a tautological statement than an empirical hypothesis. the critical rationalist critique of marginalist economics, which relies on ceteris paribus (all else being equal) conditions, suggests any similarly structured law should be viewed with skepticism. for duverger's law to be more than a tautology, it would need to be stated in a way that allows for clear empirical testing and potential falsification, without the possibility of explaining away any contradictory evidence. this would make it a substantive theory that can contribute to our understanding of political systems rather than a mere tautology.
So you telling me one of the two most unpopular candidates is gonna win on their merits? Cause sounds like nepotism with extra steps.
1: Who are you saying is one of the most unpopular candidates? You seem pretty misinformed.
2: Do you know what nepotism means? Which candidate inherited their position because of family ties?
Your comment makes no logical sense.
Kamala Harris is the candidate because? Oh she was grandfathered in. And who do you think is popular? Cause irl i hear basically the lemmycrat takes that they will hold their nose to vote Harris, meanwhile again IRL everyone says same about Trump. I find no organic support for either candidate only hate on the “other option.”
No. She’s the vice president, and it’s very common for a vice president to become the candidate in the next election.
Because I doubt you’ll care enough to click that link, here’s a partial list:
John Adams (under George Washington)
Thomas Jefferson (under John Adams)
Martin van Buren (under Andrew Jackson)
John Breckenridge (under James Buchanan)
Henry Wallace (under Franklin Roosevelt)
Richard Nixon (under Dwight Eisenhower)
Walter Mondale (under Jimmy Carter)
George H W Bush (under Ronald Reagan)
Al Gore (under Bill Clinton)
And I’ve left out many, many more who didn’t wind up with the nomination, partly because I’m on mobile and cross-referencing between Lemmy and web sites is a lot of work.
This is nothing remotely like nepotism. Pretty much every VP does this. It’s part of the point, ffs.
Any more arguments I can immediately debunk with facts?
So you ignored the substance of my statement to get a gotcha moment? You need self reflection because you still havent found any actual reason to like Harris. Like where is the student debt relief? Can we not fund genocide? Money printer go brrrrr, but what would Harris Change oh not a thing comes to mind, like why do you support your preferred candidate, can I get an elevator pitch please?
No, I didn’t ignore your comment at all. I countered it with the fact that a VP becoming the next presidential candidate is not only not remotely like nepotism, but is the standard for US politics, going back to the 18th century.
Your anger at me is misplaced. I do understand how the system works, and I don’t like it either. But I prefer to direct my outrage where it will actually make a difference, and I’ve pointed out where you can, too: we need to change the system so 3rd parties actually matter. In the meantime, I’ll oppose anyone who will usher in a fascist government where women and minorities will have their rights stripped away, and where Christian nationalism will be forced into our orifices.
How is that hard to understand?
Ok so I am debating the candidates, and you keep moving the discussion. This suggest to me you can not defend your actual position which appears to be pro-Harris. Eta you think a prosecutor who went after smoking weed who is supported by even Dick Cheney, is not an establishment player? Because why? Because shes not a white man? Like this strains credulity.
How am I moving the discussion? I’m directly addressing your comments, which so far have had nothing to do with the candidates’s policies, but about Harris’s ‘popularity’ and ‘nepotism’.
If you want to talk about real issues, I’m all ears. I gave you the elevator pitch you asked for. Now let’s hear yours.
Kamala Harris is unpopular
What happened to tearing down border wall? How come evil Trump closed the border with a signature, Biden reopened it same way but somehow Trump blocks closing the border?
Where is the Biden student loan relief?
Why are we still giving arms to Israel?
The inflation reduction act Biden brought into existence has given us more inflation than anything.
But ya know talk about how vps run for president to ignore reality.
Im not even asking you to convert me, I literally asked why you specifically supported her and you wouldn’t even do that. More orange man bad because im too ignorant about the Canadian.
You keep saying this, what’s your source?
The border is not open. Again, source? The border has never been open. The closest the US has come to an ‘open’ border was during Ellis Island and when it erected a huge statue that said:
Do you disagree with those words, engraved at the feet of the Statue of Liberty?
The borders are not open. Most of the people you hear about that come through the southern border (and there are far fewer than right-wing media scaremongers about) are refugees, which are immediately directed to official offices that the US is required by mutual UN treaties to accept and process. Again, you should look into this more before getting angry about it.
Biden’s student loan relief is being repeatedly fucked by Republicans in Congress. That should take you two seconds to see. Haven’t you noticed it being on and off just within the past week? They’re intentionally making it a campaign issue to fuck with people exactly like you.
I completely agree with you about Israel. I hate this stupid holy war. But the Republicans want it to be far worse.
Biden has not made inflation worse, that’s just ridiculous. The economy is as nimble as the Titanic, and we’re still feeling the ramifications of trump’s inane economic policies. The US is experiencing far lower inflation than the rest of the world right now, in large part due to the course correction over the last 3 years. Take a course on US and global economies and get back to me.
The rest of your comment shows me you haven’t listened to a word I’ve said, and shows you to be a dishonest interlocutor. I’ve spent a lot of time here engaging with you, with honesty and diligence, and it’s becoming clear you don’t have the respect or maturity to reply in kind. If you don’t have anything productive to say in response, I think we’re done.
Bro 10% of Cuba has emigrated to America since Biden took office thanks to his CBP One app Source, thats not including all the Venzuelans. i think you are severely misinformed, I have the same problem with the bridge and tunnel crowd who think Biden is the best cause so many get to WFH. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTFaEGXsP/ This is what NYC looks like rn.
You need to provide better sources. Your first source is highly suspect, and the only source I can find that remotely support your numbers is the Heritage Foundation , who have a long track record of outright lying to scare conservatives (and it’s still far lower than 10% of the Cuban population, which would be nearly 2 million, but the total number of applicants – not all of whom were accepted – since 2020 is roughly 500,000).
Your final link is a TikTok? Holy shit.
What is suspect and please don’t use modified numbers, I can’t tell if your a troll or real but the Biden Admin has redefined every encounter to downward revise all numbers, its to the point that if you dont come thru Eagle Pass you do not count to anything. You call my source funny and then lie, Cuba has 10 m, how is 10% 2m? And again I provided sources you hated on and had nothing more than trust me bro my bs ignorant math rocks. Btw the tiktok hate, did you even review my source or just talk smack immediately?
Look, it’s become obvious your sources are biased and you won’t consider anything I say, so this is a pointless conversation. I’m done wasting my time and energy sourcing my comments with real data and being met with unsourced right-wing propaganda or TikToks.
If you want to actually have your views matter in future elections I’d still strongly recommend you look into FairVote Action rather than getting angry at people online.
I Am not angry, I have literally addressed all your requests. You are not gonna make me to the be the ignorant one when you clearly only hear what you want. Like thats why you keep trying to discredit everything I say for no reason, it tells me what you about.
You may feel you have addressed my questions, but you haven’t, and your assertions haven’t held up well thus far.
I really recommend you step back and look at your views with a critical eye – forget anything I or anyone else has said, and really look at who you are without preconceptions or bias. That’s not very easy to do, but you seem the type who could do it.
I’m done for now. I’d be interested to talk with you after you’ve done this, cheers.
I think you meant buttery-males. Buttery emails sound kind of messy. :)
This one trick IT doesn't want you to know!